Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Consider Data Aggregation Suit Against Spokeo
BUL2294 writes: Consumerist and Associated Press are reporting that the Supreme Court has taken up the case of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins — a case where Spokeo, as a data aggregator, faces legal liability and Fair Credit Reporting Act violations for providing information on Thomas Robins, an individual who has not suffered "a specific harm" directly attributable to the inaccurate data Spokeo collected on him.
From SCOTUSblog: "Robins, who filed a class-action lawsuit, claimed that Spokeo had provided flawed information about him, including that he had more education than he actually did, that he is married although he remains single, and that he was financially better off than he actually was. He said he was unemployed and looking for work, and contended that the inaccurate information would make it more difficult for him to get a job and to get credit and insurance." So, while not suffering a specific harm, the potential for harm based on inaccurate data exists. Companies such as Facebook and Google are closely watching this case, given the potential of billions of dollars of liability for selling inaccurate information on their customers and other people.
From SCOTUSblog: "Robins, who filed a class-action lawsuit, claimed that Spokeo had provided flawed information about him, including that he had more education than he actually did, that he is married although he remains single, and that he was financially better off than he actually was. He said he was unemployed and looking for work, and contended that the inaccurate information would make it more difficult for him to get a job and to get credit and insurance." So, while not suffering a specific harm, the potential for harm based on inaccurate data exists. Companies such as Facebook and Google are closely watching this case, given the potential of billions of dollars of liability for selling inaccurate information on their customers and other people.
My Data = My Property. I grant a 3rd party limited use of ONLY the data that I supply them. They cannot in anyway, shape, or form share this data with any other party (without a court order). Any violations of this are a $ 100,000 (US) fine given directly to the person who had their data shared.
UPS Sucks
Before everyone gets upset about data collection: This Supreme Court case is not about Spokeo's data collection. It is about who has the right to sue and under what circumstances. Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of this individual, all it means is that the individual can continue their suit. It is not a ruling for or against Spokeo's data.
and i remember going through this Spokeo site and a bunch of others. It had my name, correct address and some other information, all of which, i never gave them permission to use on their site. Right off the bat, it seems to me that is breaking the law.
What many don't realize is the amount of publicly shared information data aggregators have available - phone books, home loans recorded with your county, court cases, graduation information from universities, membership listings for organizations, what you list on Facebook or LinkedIn, public DMV records, public notices in newspapers, marriage recordings, birth recordings, professional licensing. There's an assumption many people have similar to, "How would anyone access my information unless they knew where to specifically look for it?" Spokeo seems to collect *all* information from *everywhere* and then will work their way backwards to build a profile on *you*. It's super creepy, but the practice is not illegal.
If you care about privacy (in the US at least), you actually have to make an effort to keep your information out of the public eye and out of the hands of data aggregators. If you see this: "You may opt out of sharing your personal information with third-party providers if you [jump through this extra annoying hoop]," ask yourself what will eventually happen if you don't opt out right away.
To an extreme: Spokeo probably has my sentence structure identified so that there's a 99.5% chance they can link this Anonymous Coward SlashDot post to my Spokeo profile. I won't need a eulogy at my burial to tell anyone who I was. I can just have someone tweet a link to a Spokeo profile for me. :O
Think about it this way:
Mr. Robins applies for a job, filling out his resume with his accurate information. The company then goes to these 'information businesses' for a routine check and finds apparent discrepancies between his resume and the other company's records.
It is not a stretch to infer that your ability to find a job would be damaged by companies sharing false information about a person, whether the information would be considered better or worse.
What is truly disheartening is that both the sellers and buyers of this information currently have no liability for spreading false information (and hence no reason to worry about it).
In the end, it is left to the individual to monitor the spread of information about themselves, a virtually impossible task considering the sheer number of companies that buy/sell your information.
These companies should be responsible for the accuracy of the information as they are the ones profiting from the sale/purchase of said information.